Van Leeuwen says his died mop is a "political symptom not taken serious enough". She thinks it was a brilliant move to step away from his Indonesian roots and hide his post-colonial revanchism. Although this may also be an example of his "classic Indo identity alienation."

Wilders is a right-wing shithead. Whilst certain of his concerns regarding Islam warrant sympathy and attention, it's doubtful he'll ever express them intelligently or with the intellectual integrity required for such a discourse.

What distinguishes him is that he does express himself very well and doesn't come across as a 'rightwing shithead'. If he expresses genuine concerns about Islam (in Europe) and they have sense to them, then more than half the battle has been won. One thing people criticize him for is not really having a complete political program.

What would qualify as 'intellectual integrity'?

Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

A discourse on this issue that would contain some intellectual integrity is one not burdened by irrational cultural attachments, jingoism and a superficial knowledge of Islam. Wilders is guilty on all those counts as far as I'm concerned. That said, sometimes is requires the not so cautious to speak out before the cautious will. Hopefully the debate will continue and leave him behind.

Real jingoism would have an aggressive foreign policy. Holland does not and he doesn't seem to call for one. His 'nationalism' is heavily qualified, and he expresses it reasonably. He is not a racist and continually says he is for peaceful coexistance with an Islam community. It doesn't sound insincere. What some call 'baiting' of Muslims is 'truth telling'. Irrational cultural attachments? Like 'the Western Canon'? He is not calling for an irrational attachment. He is also quite clear about what he preferences. He doesn't come across like an Islamic scholar though, like an Edward Said, so maybe he can be said to have a superficial knowledge of Islam. But why should it be his business to have that knowledge? Isn't that 'irrational cultural attachment'?

I'd like to know what a 'reasonable approach' should be. It seems to me that he is attempting to influence people who, because of a kind of sheep-like complacency, are in denial about a tangible danger. But at the center of it is a more difficult and sticky point, and one that typical 'liberal' types cannot entertain: his position on Israel and, in that sense, the foundation of his value-system. Talk in Jerusalem. Since it is not even considerable, in left-leaning circles, a preferance of the Israeli situation and since a large percentage of left-leaning types, in their hearts, would like to see Israel damaged or destroyed, the whole base of his position renders him ridiculous and dismissable. It seems this is one of the main reasons he is rejected by liberal Dutch society and why his film and his discourse, which does not seem at all radical to me, is painted as 'hate speech': he is speaking in pro of the unutterable...

Conservatism, Wikipedia There is an interesting part under 'psychology' for those with a position on 'revanchism'. Is it the logical outcome of certain forms of 'radicalism' where one is obligated by one's own rhetoric to turn against oneself? An odd masochism? I suspect that also at the core of rejection of Wilders is an equal and opposing 'psychological issue', which renders one incapable of making difficult choices, since this will produce angst, anxiety, discomfort and another form of 'identity confusion'. In a way it would correspond to the QRS definition of 'effeminism', a sort of vague cloudy realm where imagination, 'good will' and consumer freedom lives: the European puer.

"It is characteristic of the conservative temperament to value established identities, to praise habit and to respect prejudice, not because it is irrational, but because such things anchor the darting impusles of human beings in solidities of custom which we do not often begin to value until we are already losing them. Radicalism often generates youth movements, while conservatism is a condition found among the mature, who have discovered what it is in life they most value." ---Kenneth Minogue (from section in Wiki section under 'psychology').

One very decent question is: what will the demographics of the Netherlands and Europe look like in another 10 years? And in 25? What really is this shift going to presage? But that hinges into a question of 'interpretation of the present' and that is where the discourse becomes difficult and thorny. I think this is why Wilders is so much at the fore. There is little that is so radical about his position. He is interpreting facts that are simply right in front of everyone. It's not like he is inventing this stuff.

There are some who utterly hate him (without really being able to offer a solid reason why)(and whose ammunition against him is ridicule, like of his gorgeous tuft of hair)(when theirs is possible died green or orange or purple and their bodies are covered with Goth tatoos!) and others who see him as a visionary. And then of course there are those who would kill him if they could. But no liberal-sounding sort ever seems to feel there is something unnatural and offensive in that: you get the impression they more or less agree, or that there is no sympathy. Peculiar.

Where are the 'reasonable sorts' who will take over his discourse and move it forward in a 'positive' way? At the core of the issue is a very, very difficult problem.

A Jewish businessman, Gidi Markuszower, decided to run on the PVV's ballot as #5 for the forthcoming parliamentary election in June. But he soon had to withdraw his candidacy after coming under fire for his controversial remark that Jews critical of Israel, or more specifically anyone not renouncing the UN Goldstone report on Gaza, should be banned from the Dutch Jewish community. Party of freedom or party of hypocrites united? On the other hand: Wilders his party-secretary Martin Bosma has a Israeli flag hanging in his office. Wilders himself is married to a Hungarian-Jewish diplomat.

But the remark about Wilders artificial hair color is more significant than his defendants are willing to admit: he is of proven Indonesian descent, easy to see if you know Indonesian people and more specifically he's descended from a very particular Dutch-Indonesian sub-culture, once caught between a hostile native country and a hostile "new land". They went "all in" for the Dutch identity, only to become enraged when subsequent immigrants dared to be multi-cultural and causing the unavoidable integration issues.

Summarized one could describe Wilder's ideas as as form of a reactionary, out of proportion cultural patriotism combined with xenophobia. Mostly cleverly marketed emotionalism and as such attracting quite some diverse crowds in and outside his tiny country, consisting of all kinds of folks merely desiring a pseudo-notable platform for their unresolved issues to find comfort in.

"Against the background of the massive influx of Muslim immigrants, he fears that having embraced post-modernism and cultural relativism, most Europeans lack the stamina to maintain their core values and are capitulating to Muslims determined to impose Shari’a law in Europe.

"Wilders refers to Islam as “the Trojan horse in Europe” and predicts that “if we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about one million. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European civilization.”

"Wilders denies he is a racist or fascist, insisting that “I make a distinction between the ideology of Islam and the people,” emphatically reiterating that “my allies are not Le Pen or Haider… we will never join up with fascists”."

"However, Wilders may have over-reached himself when he called for the banning of the Koran, which he compared to Mein Kampf, alleging that it incites Muslims to resort to violence. Whilst such provocative statements may have been deliberately expressed to dramatize the dangers confronting Europe, they alienated many who would endorse his calls to heed the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism because it would require Muslims to renounce their religious identity and sacred texts and thus run counter to all democratic principles."

"Genuine coexistence with Islam can only be achieved if the moderate Muslims become sufficiently courageous to leave the closet and assume leadership positions. To achieve this, Europe must demand that the Muslims living amongst them become integrated into a democratic society. If this fails, Europeans at best will face intensified chaos or, in the worst-case scenario, will undergo a civil war to prevent the flag of Islam from being imposed on them.

"For all these reasons, the outcome of the Wilders trial in the Netherlands is of immense importance. His more extreme views about banning the Koran are a political response to the failure of law enforcement to curb the verbal and physical excesses of Islamic extremists. If Wilders is convicted of promoting “hate speech” in a country such as the Netherlands where Muslim violence and calls of “death to the Jews” are regular occurrences and rarely prosecuted, it will have grave repercussions on the future of Europe and the retention of global freedom of expression. It will also embolden Islamic fundamentalist extremists and provide jihadists throughout the world with a genuine cause for celebration."

Most of these articles just show the same ignorance as their subject. For example:

" massive influx of Muslim immigrants"Which does not currently exist! Current immigration is mainly caused by new EU countries like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. It's old hat: right there in the first statement. WIlders does not target this immigration with his east-European wife of course.

" Muslims determined to impose Shari’a law in Europe".In the Netherlands there is no significant Sharia lawgiving practiced anywhere after decades of Islamic "invasions", as recent fact-finding inquiries showed, and no proof any significant portion of the Muslim population desiring to change that. They must do it secretly in their basements where they slaughter their babies!

" One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about one million".This statement ignores amongst other things the different waves of immigration, especially the largest wave of European Muslims work-migrants from Turkey (another European country), on special invite to do cheap labor during an economic boom! Sometimes you've to deal with decisions made in the past instead of suggesting these people infiltrated secretly somehow. Such migration waves are of all times and considered normal demographic dynamics by people with a firmer grip on history. Why people who profess love for Israel with its rich story of Exodus about an evil Pharaoh trying to wipe out a booming immigrant Hebrew population, are having so much trouble with this concept is breath taking!

However, Wilders does present some valid concerns. Lets list them:

* Problems with specific groups of mostly young Marokkans, (non-Muslim) Antillians and (non-Muslim) Moluccans who are perceived as dominating certain areas of the criminal charts and are dragging whole neighborhoods down. But instead of singling out these groups, Wilders rather points to a problem with 'Islam' because it's something easer to target legally as well as being more digestible for the average dissatisfied citizen. The complexity of the issue is thereby completely circumvented, with all the multiple causes rooted in the way our society and their cultural background is set up.

* A general distrust towards the elected government, their slow moving wheels and the distance between the concerns of the average citizen and a member of the political class. This concern however is universal amongst older democratic nations and their populaces and addressed by several parties already. But solutions are often not presented and the vague suggestions being made by Wilders can be questioned if it really would change much for the good.

* The danger for the "Dutch identity" steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions to be overrun or at least significantly modified by Islamic religious and cultural elements. Similar to concerns of Israeli Jews that their state would lose a "Jewish identity". While the concerns seem valid enough, one could also question why this identity has become so weak that it has to fear its demise. Why are our values not capable anymore to demand respect, to cause others to adopt them? Perhaps one should rather focus on strengthening ones own values, nobility and ability to be truthful and fair, rather than fearing it to be stolen away? Ah, but perhaps it's this very weakness that created the xenophobic element and the resentment to what's alien in the first place?

I guess this will come off as a little anecdotal, but one major bit of learning for me here on The Forum of Extreme Genius has been how corrupt and inprecise are so many of the conclusions from these supposedly pure and good methods of 'reasoning' upheld by the Illustrious Genii. Since a number here, and many of the main players, seem so essentially benighted, it is always worthwhile to take little peeks behind the curtains of these conclusions and, at least, to keep an open mind.

The whole meaning of our age, I think, circles around the issue of 'interpretation of the present' and of 'reality'. For all that I might respect The Forth Genius I am not sure of he has the skills to interpret his world accurately. All that genius, turning so many mental wheels (Rube Goldberg contraptions?), and yet seemingly inept when it comes to accurate perceptions, yet so convinced of the essential rightness of their view.

I can't realy draw any specific conclusions from this trait one notices so often among the heavies here, it is just something that has struck me in my couple of years of my participation.

Diebert writes: "In the Netherlands there is no significant Shari'a lawgiving practiced anywhere after decades of Islamic "invasions", as recent fact-finding inquiries showed, and no proof any significant portion of the Muslim population desiring to change that. They must do it secretly in their basements where they slaughter their babies!"

I would imagine that it depends on whose 'fact-finding' one resorts to. This is a huge problem: you can find someone, somewhere, to support almost any conclusion, any a priori. There'll be a web page and tons of 'facts'. This does not necessarily work in favor of supporting Wilders though. It is one of the tremendous problems of our age: sifting through all the tendentious 'facts' and trying to get to a view of reality.

But is Geert Wilders exaggerating? Could be...

Diebert continues: "This statement ignores amongst other things the different waves of immigration, especially the largest wave of European Muslims work-migrants from Turkey (another European country), on special invite to do cheap labor during an economic boom! Sometimes you've to deal with decisions made in the past instead of suggesting these people infiltrated secretly somehow. Such migration waves are of all times and considered normal demographic dynamics by people with a firmer grip on history. Why people who profess love for Israel with its rich story of Exodus about an evil Pharaoh trying to wipe out a booming immigrant Hebrew population, are having so much trouble with this concept is breath taking!"

This is a strangely irrelevant paragraph. It wouldn't really matter how they got there, it is more a question that they are there. Still, I don't doubt that because of the economic tough times there is more anti-Islamic sentiment than at other times. Most human motivations are dual or triune or multiplex. There is a similar anti-immigration movement rising up from the grass roots here in the US as most know. It is also very hotly debated.

Also, there is no doubt that 'Jews' privelage themselves as against Muslims on the European stage. Jews have had so much to do with Europe and for so long that 'our fates are interwoven'. Can the same be said for Islamic culture? In the long run what will be the effect of Islamic culture on Europe? What will happen in the next 10 years, in the next 20 years? If one had to make an assessment and make choices on the basis of that assessment, what would one choose?

Diebert writes: "A general distrust towards the elected government, their slow moving wheels and the distance between the concerns of the average citizen and a member of the political class. This concern however is universal amongst older democratic nations and their populaces and addressed by several parties already. But solutions are often not presented and the vague suggestions being made by Wilders can be questioned if it really would change much for the good."

That may be so but what he is decrying is more the 'relativism' or the liberal indifference that allows a people to surrender the cultural anchor of what makes them them. (That was sort of a rough sentence, sorry). Or that allows them to offer no defense against an 'invading' counter-philosophy or ethic. It might have more to do with a movement that arises from the 'grass roots' with a will different from political leadership which is often a little sluttish. But as we all know the will and desire of the populace is always problematic. Still, in his talks, he makes some very good points about a need to preserve a solid connection with our own traditions, to value and revalue them. I notice all the time a general ebbing-away from strong connections to the roots of 'Western culture', all that stuff that made us what we are. It is a slow turning however and one doesn't notice it until the shift has occurred. It is certainly not the fault of anyone else though that that is happening. The roots are found within our own selves and our choices.

Diebert: "The danger for the "Dutch identity" steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions to be overrun or at least significantly modified by Islamic religious and cultural elements. Similar to concerns of Israeli Jews that their state would lose a "Jewish identity". While the concerns seem valid enough, one could also question why this identity has become so weak that it has to fear its demise. Why are our values not capable anymore to demand respect, to cause others to adopt them? Perhaps one should rather focus on strengthening ones own values, nobility and ability to be truthful and fair, rather than fearing it to be stolen away? Ah, but perhaps it's this very weakness that created the xenophobic element and the resentment to what's alien in the first place?"

You seem to admit then that it is possible (the swamping of 'Dutch identity'). That the premise has a certain sense to it? If the question is why has self-identity become so weak, it is a good one, and one worthy of being looked into. No doubt it is complex but probably a big part of it stems from 'post-war radicalism', a cultivation of self-contempt, 'cultural relativism' and a sort of nihilistic rebellious youthful difficulty in defining and holding to 'value'. The outcome of choices/causes. We don't recognize what our values are until they begin to slip away out from underneath us and we find ourselves in a rising sea of non-value or counter-value. Then we regret what has been lost.

The last two sentences are interesting but I think they are flawed. I don't think 'the West' (as seen over the last 4-5 decades)(taking into consideration youth movements and progressive trends in our cultures) has been at all short of sympathy and understanding and openness to other 'cultural modalities'. I think 'we' (the last few generations) have made incredible efforts at opening outselves up and allowing new ways of thinking to emerge and to take form. Europe and America seem very open too to different cultures, that is certainly true for America (and this is a very good thing in my view if assimilation is asked for, insisted upon). But there is a time for opening and a time for closing, for taking stock of what is one's own, and the value of one's heritage and creations. If I were to make statements and to exhort people to consider the Western Canon in that sense as against other cultural modalities it would be expressed in such 'reasonable' terms. In that sense it is up to us to place value where it is deserved, to strengthen it.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:...how corrupt and inprecise are so many of the conclusions

Calm down don Quixote, the Holy Crusader against all arrogant windbags! It's just a Wordly Matter forum with opinions being exchanged. Although my views generally are extremely well sourced and reasoned out and not easy to trump by some quick and dirty copy & paste job, it's not that of a big deal to me. If you'd have some actual data point to add beyond a wiki entry: feel free! Don't let me hold my breath again though.

This is a huge problem: you can find someone, somewhere, to support almost any conclusion, any a priori.

You mean like citing the Jerusalem Post commenting on an Islamic issue in the Netherlands? Yeah, that was a bit of a reach, don't you think?

It wouldn't really matter how they got there, it is more a question that they are there.

No, you don't understand: the point is anti-immigration, the repeated statement that "all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted" (Wilders) and the JP's "massive influx of Muslim immigrants", note the present tense.

And how do you let immigrants leave again? Paying them, as Wilders suggests? Not a viable solution, he knows only very well there's only one solution, as the Egyptians knew too in Moses his time....

Jews have had so much to do with Europe and for so long that 'our fates are interwoven'. Can the same be said for Islamic culture? In the long run what will be the effect of Islamic culture on Europe?

Depends what you call "Europe", one often means here "Western Europe", "the West" perhaps or "Christendom" although the devil is here in the details of what's being meant exactly. And is the argument "our fates are not interwoven" really something one can weigh any future relationship with? It seems like nothing but veiled xenophobia.

Still, in his talks, he [Wilders] makes some very good points about a need to preserve a solid connection with our own traditions, to value and revalue them.

There are many more politicians doing that. But the point is not the need, it's how one can build on traditions and values, growing with them, reinventing and re-energizing the will and direction of a people. To me, the type of thinking Wilders represent is a symptom of decay, not of strength. It's a wishing and pining for something that has left or is somewhere rotting (in Denmark?) and the only way to get out of it is not, not, not by pushing away forces that can potentially bring these new elements into the mesh. Being it Chinese, Indian or Middle-Eastern ways of doing or believing - which are all fluid enough to adapt and morph in a new environment in their own way.

I don't think 'the West' (as seen over the last 4-5 decades)(taking into consideration youth movements and progressive trends in our cultures) has been at all short of sympathy and understanding and openness to other 'cultural modalities'.

And it's still ongoing. In your own words: "in the long run what will be the effect". Perhaps for the first time it starts to happen with the aim or possibility of equality, instead of some form of slave labor or creating some subclass of citizens.

But more importantly, what is needed is the realisation that if our own 'modality' or traditional values are not strong, that they should perhaps be discarded, slowly and with pain, but it has to be done! Just like with any other corrupt morality, divinity or spirituality before the rot turns into a destructive up-welling, a bit like a volcano releasing tectonic tensions.

Diebert wrote: "Although my views generally are extremely well sourced and reasoned out and not easy to trump by some quick and dirty copy & paste job, it's not that of a big deal to me."

It is so very hard to get to the 'truth'. Especially when thinking or talking about such a hot-button item like Islam and immigration. While you (anyone really) sees themselves as sincere and capable of getting to this 'truth', it is just such a puzzling thing that someone (like yourself) with all sorts of good skills in analysis could still fail to understand. Still, I don't see a Dutch government site as offering any definitive opinion about the issue.

By mentioning Wilders and this issue, it is only to bring it to the fore for consideration. Maybe the guy is only 50% 'right'?

I would think the Israelis would have a better grasp of the facts of dealing with Islamic populations than the Europeans generally. And the Jerusalem Post article was pretty balanced I though, considering it is a fairly reactionary newspaper generally speaking.

I will just bet that the 'danger' of this Islamic problem in Europe is somewhere in the middle.

In the US there is now a great deal of hype about the immigration issue, and you get to see all the extreme arguments thrown around, and again: the 'truth' if it could be found is probably somewhere in the middle.

"And how do you let immigrants leave again? Paying them, as Wilders suggests? Not a viable solution, he knows only very well there's only one solution, as the Egyptians knew too in Moses his time..."

Now this is an interesting question. It would seem to me the 'answer' (and one Wilders talks about) is an aggressive assimilation effort. That is my sense of what the banning of the burqua effort is all about, isn't it? To 'attack' the symbols of cultural isolation? To say, If you are going to be here you must do A, B and C. You couldn't maintain a liberal relativism, you'd have to make certain rather drastic decisions. I would imagine another big part of the effort would be propaganda/PR: to create a PR mood where assimilation is the best option, supported by public opinion.

This is not quite comparable, I don't think, to the Latino immigration problem now in the news in the US. It is a quite different culture that is making a home within a host culture, and only for economic reasons, isn't that so?

But if it comes to push and shove---in terms of 'making them leave'---you apply pressure to either assimilate in a broad sense or to find unpleasant circumstances that would make 'them' want to leave. Like, you're not welcome here so...shove off.

To mention Exodus is rather silly, isn't it? Let God call them out of Europe and smite Europe with plagues to get His will. No one would likely argue! The Islamic-European situation is actually more similar to the Israelites invasion of Canaan.

"Depends what you call "Europe", one often means here "Western Europe", "the West" perhaps or "Christendom" although the devil is here in the details of what's being meant exactly."

Oh God, yes, and I could just imagine you hashing it out forever: slicing and reslicing, grouping this with that but subtracting some other, and never able to come to any conclusion. I am sure you would make a very rational mess of the whole thing, and then you'd just sit there, confused and inept. Which is in some sense at least why Wilders and people like him become more relevant: they see the issue in rather specific terms, and they act on their perceptions, propose a plan, etc. They act in the present, which is always danger-laden. Your position does seem quintessentially relativist and sort of undecided: like there is no decisiveness. Tsk, tsk---rather feminine isn't it?

"And is the argument "our fates are not interwoven" really something one can weigh any future relationship with? It seems like nothing but veiled xenophobia."

I don't have any problem with clinical-sounding words like 'xenophobia'. But note that you are painting it as if it is a pathology in the hearts of Europeans, a failing. To be angry, disturbed or concerned about such a great issue does not seem to me to be irrational, and not a pathology. It could express itself pathologically, it could transform into something like oppression of 'the stranger' in your midst, but I don't at all get the impression this is where Wilders is coming from: he is clear and lucid what his aim is and repeats (convincingly) that he doesn't have anything against these people as people. It is the doctrines and the separatism he has an issue with. But you, you see, what you have done is employ irrational arguments against a rational and justified fear or apprehension. It's 'revanchism', it all is because of his Indonesian roots, his tuft of dyed hair, a psychological reacion against modern cultural ambiguity.

Your reactions and your use of this ammunition is rather telling, isn't it? What does it say? It is just the common coin of European youth clture right now: an inability to actually distinguish one value group from another. And fear to make a decision. You have to pathologize it, turn it into 'xenophobia'.

"To me, the type of thinking Wilders represent is a symptom of decay, not of strength. It's a wishing and pining for something that has left or is somewhere rotting (in Denmark?) and the only way to get out of it is not, not, not by pushing away forces that can potentially bring these new elements into the mesh."

You may be at least somewhat right. But the conclusion to be drawn might be different. Wilder's reaction is a symptom of awareness of decay, no doubt. And it may turn out to be a vain reaction since, as we all know, there might not be enough of a 'European center' to hold (anymore). How many times have wee historically witnessed a belwether who was ignored? Many times.

Now, I am not sure what are these 'forces' that can bring 'new elements into the mesh' but I am not sure that will come from Islamic culture.

In terms of 'causes': something is acting to break apart cohesion, cultural identity, the privelaging of western values. Few have the understanding to act against this current of causation, and many actually participate in it as if it is 'good' and 'necessary'. And time marches on. Ten or twenty years later we will look back and see the moment when action was needed, and we will see those undecided, atomized individuals who were incapable of making themselves into positive, relavant actors in their present.

I would imagine that---and certainly here in the general environment of GF (since this is the context)---we would have a very, very difficult time defining a core group of values that each of us feels is indispensable. In that sense we are 'caused' to exist in a nebulous, undefined ethical 'space' and are incapable of defining what we ultimately value.

I guess that is one reason why these conversations can often be so interesting but why so often they dead-end into a sort of nothingness. Nothing decided, nothing really understood.

This is the dead-end you bring into each and every conversation! It's not about "getting to a truth" or "definitive opinion", what a silly idea only you could have backhandedly introduced! It's more about how you get to the perspectives, how truthful or consistent the path is. And right there it can be used as a measuring stick, to examine various blocks and incapacities on that path. It's all very mundane perhaps, worldly, gross, but it's an arena which can work at times, as a playful reflection of the larger issues we have attempted to discuss in the past and with the same results.

Anyway, the issue is not that important to me and this will be the last comment; Wilders is a ghost, a simulacrum of a political movement, like a male version of Sarah Palin. Although much in society is equally baseless, giving a short-lived appearance of reality to the whole thing. In the past I already wrote

Diebert wrote:[Wilders is] nothing but a mouthpiece of a dark brown undercurrent of society with absolutely no dialog internally and no dialog with any opposing party or group. Any call for a public debate from and with Islamic groups and representatives he has always declined.

And this is somehow representing a defender for Western values and democracy or a serious stirrer of debate? It's only demonstrating a level of ignorance that is breath taking. Yes, discussion is needed and real problems demand real solutions and constructive approaches. Wilders represents one of the problems, that is: obscuring the language, the discourse in a way that makes it near impossible to ever move forward. And yes, this is what makes him so perfectly aligned in my view with many Zionist and neo-conservative types. Not that the issues they raise are not important and worthy of debate, it's how they kill dialog before it can start as if their true motive is something completely different than stated.

and

Diebert wrote:Open borders will in time change all identities and mix cultures. Fear of that and blaming misfortunes on that process is essentially a fascist ideology

And this is not just opinion, it's more like inevitable. The only question is who will be taking the high road and who the low road.

-Diebert van Rhijn-But the remark about Wilders artificial hair color is more significant than his defendants are willing to admit: he is of proven Indonesian descent, easy to see if you know Indonesian people and more specifically he's descended from a very particular Dutch-Indonesian sub-culture, once caught between a hostile native country and a hostile "new land". They went "all in" for the Dutch identity, only to become enraged when subsequent immigrants dared to be multi-cultural and causing the unavoidable integration issues.

-tomas-Yes, his hairstyle is somewhat dodgy.

-Diebert- Summarized one could describe Wilder's ideas as as form of a reactionary, out of proportion cultural patriotism combined with xenophobia. Mostly cleverly marketed emotionalism and as such attracting quite some diverse crowds in and outside his tiny country, consisting of all kinds of folks merely desiring a pseudo-notable platform for their unresolved issues to find comfort in.

-tomas-Dan calls him "right-wing". I'd place him as a "mainstream conservative".

He will either be found guilty in his upcoming trial and sentenced to prison.

-OR-

He will be the next prime minister. He will be the next boss unless he's assassinated.

PS - Hurrah for him that he left Romam Catholicism behind. The pagan religion it really is..

What, Tomas, are you comparing this pagan-Catholicism to, if I may know? What do you measure it against?____________________________________________

I love having the last word btw!

Dan called him a 'right-wing shithead' which is slightly different. When Diebert gets him in his sight (like seeing through those x-ray glasses they sell out of comic books) he sees 'Indo-fascist'. These labels and designations are more properly techniques of 'seeing' to keep one from seeing. The interesting thing, the unfortunate thing, is that both the right and left-wing polarities, generally speaking, use such lenses of perception to 'see' and 'explain' the other, but when they get done the issue is confused, you can't see properly. This is the coinage of our age. This kind of 'thinking', coming from such 'accomplished intellects' (*guffaws*) seems to suggest more lack of having a clue.

There are a few things here now: One, the comparison to Sarah Palin. It is a very bad comparison and it just doesn't work. On one hand, Sarah Palin is pretty incoherant, or 'naturally incoherant'. She requires tutoring by handlers to express her points. Wilders on the other hand is quite articulate and not unreasonable. He may exaggerate in support of his points, but his points are cogent. The people who cannot hear cogency are those, it would seem, who are 'possessed' by psychological energies which, whenever his image or his name appears to them, can only see the Devil. I would suggest that projection of inner content is in operation, and instead of agreeing, would turn the mirror around to look at the Devil sighter.

On another level, if we were to consider 'Sarah Palin' as a manifestation of cultural tendencies, a comparison between Wilders and Palin might be a little in order. Wilders, like Palin, has a considerable grass-roots following. So-called 'average people' are responding to both of them. There is an emerging class or group who, for various reasons, simply cannot bear with the image, the thoughts or the values of this submerged underclass (for want of a better word), and that ridicules not only the speaker but the 'values' that are spoken about. However, at least in Palin's case, when you actually listen to her more cogent discourse, or to those more eloquent who speak in her same context, you discover that there is a valid discourse there: meaning, these people have a sense of their own values and they have decided to protect them, express them, and to work politically with them. I certainly suggest that only a fool would dismiss a significant block of people without actually making an effort to see what they are defending and why. Many of them, as we all know, are indeed professing Christians and we can certainly examine and criticize their belief-structure (simplistic, binary, rhetorically driven, superstitious), but in other contexts the core value-structure or belief-structure can mature. My general view of course is that Christianity and Judaism, understood and expressed intelligently, is a force of great good. The whole culture of the West is so steeped in the values that were carved out by Judeo-Christianity and they and it should not be surrendered. The so-called Christian Right is capable of growth and transformation and my opinion is that it will. It is likely far better to learn to dialogue with 'these people' than to dismiss and ridicule them. That tendency to dismiss and ridicule, which is the base of both Dan's and Diebert's formation of opinion, is really a group activity, a herd activity.

I am not at all impressed, Diebert, by what you wrote back in the Palestine thread, though I assume you are. You express yourself cogently I will grant you that, but your perception is pretty obviously skewed. You are the Forth Genius, you certainly have standing here, but more and more you start to look like a classic dweeb. A dweeb among so many dweebs.

4G wrote: "[Wilders is] nothing but a mouthpiece of a dark brown undercurrent of society with absolutely no dialog internally and no dialog with any opposing party or group."

That is just opinion, Diebert. Palin and her following is explained and labeled in pretty much the same terms. You, and those who think like you, are constitutionally incapable of considering their terms of discourse. There is a whole group of reasons why 'that' cannot appear on your mental screen. So, what is 'dark' for you is 'light' for them. If the comparison in ideology between Palin and Wilders is valid, 'you' and people like you cannot and will not hear or consider what they are on about, so the question becomes Who is shutting who out?

4G wrote: "Open borders will in time change all identities and mix cultures. Fear of that and blaming misfortunes on that process is essentially a fascist ideology."

Now with this you are really sounding stupid. This is so easy to refute one can do it without breathing hard. Some time ago in a book of essays called What's Your Dangerous Idea, some scientist or researcher offered up the idea that what 'we' consider to be of supreme value: liberal democracy, freedom of expression, religious freedom, market freedom, etc. (all those lovely things that have arisen from 'our values'), are not at all values shared by the majority of cultures and people on this planet. In that sense, 'we' are a minority. The gist was that all that we hold as desirable and valuable could very quickly be submerged, rendered irrelevant, by other emerging cultures. For example, China might not have an intrinsic will to 'freedom' (or freedom of expression) or really even many of the 'values' that we hold dear. This may also be true of other cultures. even perhaps India. Certainly in Latin America nothing comparable to our so-called 'liberal democracies' has ever arisen and may never arise. The point is that---and sometimes these things happen quite quickly, in an historical moment as it were---a great deal that we value could simply become irrelevant. It may in fact already be happening. It may in fact already have taken place.

So, seen against that backdrop, these glib and self-righteous statements of yours might be seen as grossly misperceptive. Surely you can have 'open borders' or 'open doors' between peers, but when it comes to those who are not peers and have no interest in being peers in this way, who may only desire to claim what is yours, to take it over, and to run it according to their values, whatever they may be (and they may be radically authoritarian and inclined in very different ways: the Middle East taken generally, China, possibly India, etc.---quite significant blocks of population), it might indicate that a strategy to maintain such 'closed borders' is simply an intelligent idea and not one expressing a fascist tendency.

4G wrote: "And this is not just opinion, it's more like inevitable. The only question is who will be taking the high road and who the low road."

You'd have to have a mature understanding of what is the high road and what is the low road. That is of course a question of defining values.

Opening idea-frontiers seems inevitable, yes. And a good thing. A quite miraculous thing in fact. It is quite obvious that physical borders cannot be opened before each 'backward' region is developed economically and socially. It may happen in some future that there are no longer borders, yet not for quite some time. But there is absolutely no guarantee that the world-culture that arises in that future context will be 'desirable'---unless perhaps 'we' make sure that that happens, somehow.

But this extends far beyond the smaller issue of the spread of Islamic culture in Europe. It is wise to devote serious thoiught and consideration to this 'problem', not to villify those belwethers who are speaking about it, and to question the tendencies in our culture not to be willing to estimate and consider the dangers present, and also to dismiss or diminish the 'values' that have arisen from our own history and culture: supremely important values, and values that are rare in this world.

Finally, I would like to again suggest that the structure of your views, a sort of internal flaccidness, has more in common with a 'female' complacency (since you most often represent yourself as a manly intellect) than with a defining or forging of values, a taking matters in hand. You have internalized, it seems, some of the common discourses of the Left, in this issue and also in regard to Israel (and other things) which is more like working under received opinions than it is forging something new and dynamic. You cannot even define what is there to be protected, and you mainly seem to defend what will blend all people together into some sort of 'female mass'.

"Wilders is as "one-sided" as any filmmaker trying to compress reality into a documentary film. His film is as "anti-Islamic" as Michael Moore's are "anti-capitalist." The hostility does not lie in the eye of the beholder, but rather in the nature of the film's subject. Part of the ritualistic response of Muslim communities to the observation that Islam is not always a peaceful religion is invariably the threat of violence, should the "insult" not be retracted -- regardless of whether it was made by the pope, a politician or a poet.

"And Wilders is guilty of breaking with yet another aspect of the prevailing consensus. He opted to act, not just react. Since announcing his film three months ago, he has been defining the course of the debate, driving his opponent away from him. Nobody would have been surprised if Wilders had ended his game by confessing that the film itself did not actually exist."

No, I only posted an article about an academic study outlining Indonesian elements and fascism in his cultural background. You are adding to that.

"no dialog internally and no dialog with any opposing party or group" : That is just opinion

That's not opinion, it's a generally known fact to the Dutch at least that Wilders from the start refused all invitation for debate with Muslim leaders and experts on neutral territory or even open (uncooked) debates with fellow politicians. He avoids all peer review, all public places where he can be cornered! And still does! Is it perhaps because he and his movie are swimming in a sea of easy to refute, distorted factoids? Of course this will never be established since there's no dialog where it can be fleshed out, only reviews.

And there's no doubt to anyone, even his own people, that the internal party structure is basically a one-man show, a form of dictatorship. It's not "just opinion" that there are no members, no voting, no dialog at all between equals. This is a complete departure from any other political party structure in European democracies.

'closed borders' is simply an intelligent idea

It's not just about watch towers, I was talking just as well about ongoing cultural fluency and exchange, Internet, trade, international markets and dependencies, etc. But instead of honestly inquiring more detail, these two words are now branded " stupd, glib and self-righteous statement". What the fuck, Alex? You go on stating that "opening idea-frontiers seems inevitable and a good thing". But ideas are not dis-embodied. They move with capital, work, refugees and free travel. The direction of the arrow is not something that can really be controlled for too long, actually any attempt to do that usually leads to disaster: the low road.

Well good. You do not see Wilders as an 'Indo-fascist'. I would have thought, with the link you provided, and the term mentioned in that context, that you did. Usually, that sort of casting aspersions and innuendo is a standard tactic of branding someone with unfortunate labels. Nearly everyone who refers to Lilly Van Leeuwen takes her comments out of context and uses them strictly as ammunition. It would be like the Tea Party people who think that everything Obama does or says is because of his mixed racialness, or his upbringing in Indonesia. It is an ugly tactic. Will Lilly Van Leeuwan also publish some juicy articles about Obama's 'revanchism'? It would be rather fitting wouldn't it? Or perhaps Obama as Uncle Tom? Would anyone even take it seriously? Or would they go ballistic?

You bone head, didn't you take any of that into consideration when you posted the link and the 'opinion'?

In respect to:

"[Wilders is] nothing but a mouthpiece of a dark brown undercurrent of society..."

I wrote:

"That is just opinion, Diebert. Palin and her following is explained and labeled in pretty much the same terms. You, and those who think like you, are constitutionally incapable of considering their terms of discourse. There is a whole group of reasons why 'that' cannot appear on your mental screen. So, what is 'dark' for you is 'light' for them. If the comparison in ideology between Palin and Wilders is valid, 'you' and people like you cannot and will not hear or consider what they are on about, so the question becomes Who is shutting who out?"

I take your word that he refuses to debate. Many of the articles about him mention that he refuses to debate Islamicists, etc. No argument there. It seems to be a political tactic. Would you like me to weave him a cogent defense? Some sort of explanation of his strategy?

"Is it perhaps because he and his movie are swimming in a sea of easy to refute, distorted factoids? Of course this will never be established since there's no dialog where it can be fleshed out, only reviews."

As the Der Spiegel article pointed out, his documentary technique is similar to Michael Moore's. I personally detest Michael Moore's work, and am not (despite appearances) defending Wilders necessarily. I just think it is an interesting phenomenon---a hot button in European politics. A great deal hinges on it, it opens up into some pretty tense discourses and problems. It is interesting to examine it, and try to see why it gets so many people's knickers in a bundle. One thing of note: the Left (speaking generally) accepts Michael Moore's method of critique because, in their heart of hearts, they agree with it. But of course they all have a shit fit when someone they DON'T agree with uses similar techniques. Still, the film is sensationalistic, no doubt of that, and Wilders himself says that was his intention. To provoke people. It seems to have worked. The fact that Islamic people think it appropriate to issue death-warrants, and few seem to have the spine to stand up to that, is especially telling. I've said more 'evil' things about Judaism and Christianity in my lifetime than Geert Wilders will ever say about Islam. His discourse is very, very specific.

"It's not just about watch towers, I was talking just as well about ongoing cultural fluency and exchange, Internet, trade, international markets and dependencies, etc. But instead of honestly inquiring more detail, these two words are now branded " stupd, glib and self-righteous statement". What the fuck, Alex? You go on stating that "opening idea-frontiers seems inevitable and a good thing". But ideas are not dis-embodied. They move with capital, work, refugees and free travel. The direction of the arrow is not something that can really be controlled for too long, actually any attempt to do that usually leads to disaster: the low road."

You are an intelligent fellow, you know that there are so many supra-frontier means of communication, so many ways for information to penetrate. It is simply a given that that goes on. But you left your own term, which is normally taken to mean literally an open border that someone can walk across, undefined. If now you define it differently, no problem.

And don't 'what the fuck' me, jerk. You are glib and you are self-righteous.

Again, I haven't voiced that either. The article added just another perspective to the six links you dumped without comment or summary, including the film 'Fitna' (a title meaning mostly 'the Evil'). While I do not believe Wilders is a "fascist", I do think his motives are better understood when understanding his past and current environment. And the ideology arising is certainly related to core elements of fascism.

Will Lilly Van Leeuwan also publish some juicy articles about Obama's 'revanchism'?

If he bleached his skin and refused to talk openly about his time in Indonesia and the ideas of his father: sure!

'Indo" is a normal term for Indonesian-Dutch heritage, and Indo-fascism is a particular historical set of ideas which is not that different from Wilders program. More importantly, van Leeuwen demonstrated with material from the National Archive how Wilder's own statements about his family are a collection of half-truths, fantasy and rather skewed interpretations.

But you didn't know that, you didn't read the article and the references, you didn't read Wilder his biography, but you are ready to dismiss or ridicule it instead of taking it in as a possible interesting angle, rooted in actual history and genealogy. In that way, you're avoiding meaningful debate every step of the way, just like Wilders, really.

Many of the articles about him mention that he refuses to debate Islamicists, etc. No argument there. It seems to be a political tactic.

No, it's not only Islamists. He doesn't debate the topic of Islam itself. Flat out refusal. This might be a tactic but the point is that it's not politics; it's a suffocating climate he creates with it.

As the Der Spiegel article pointed out, his documentary technique is similar to Michael Moore's.

With the difference that Moore doesn't visit parliaments and senates to show it to politicians worldwide. Moore keeps it in the cinema, not weighing it down that much.

But you left your own term, which is normally taken to mean literally an open border that someone can walk across, undefined. If now you define it differently, no problem.

It's not defined differently, it's just true on more than one level in this free-market information age. Which is the case for near everything I take the trouble to write down here.

Diebert writes: "While I do not believe Wilders is a "fascist", I do think his motives are better understood when understanding his past and current environment. And the ideology arising is certainly related to core elements of fascism."

The first part is quite nice: everyone can be better understood through examination of formation, context, the attitudes of one's parents, one's time-frame, etc. No arguments there. With the second phrase---Hey! I thought you weren't going to post anymore on this subject! Oh, whatever. But I do want the last last last word!---with the second phrase you get squirrely. What is the normally accepted definition of fascism? Let's see: 1) Virulent racism, 2) concentration of industrial and economic power in the state, 3) a culture of militarism, 4) and a dangerous nationalist chauvinism.

Unfortunately for you, Wilders doesn't qualify. He is not racist (according to himself) but opposed to the ideology contained in Islam. He is not against Arab or Islamic people, and states this very clearly. This is a significant difference. There is no other point where Wilder's views coincide with the list of traits that define fascism.

So, let's scratch that one. (But it is fair to say that fascism or fascistic traits can arise in many different circumstances, either of the Left or the Right. It is not impossible that this European movement against Islam morph, somehow, into something more ugly).

You don't need Van Leeuwan to write those articles or to express such opinions, that is exactly what the Right is doing: taking certain facts, stressing them in certain ways, putting separate elements together, and implying that Obama is [fill in the blanks]. What Van Leeuwan is doing is quite like that. It is done for political purposes. Still, from the little clips I read, she qualified all her statements saying 'there is no way to prove this', but the damage is done: it circulates all over the web. What can you do?

"More importantly, van Leeuwen demonstrated with material from the National Archive how Wilder's own statements about his family are a collection of half-truths, fantasy and rather skewed interpretations."

So are most people's. I don't know if this is sufficient to dismiss his whole project.

"But you didn't know that, you didn't read the article and the references, you didn't read Wilder his biography, but you are ready to dismiss or ridicule it instead of taking it in as a possible interesting angle, rooted in actual history and genealogy. In that way, you're avoiding meaningful debate every step of the way, just like Wilders, really."

Sez you. I've read what I've read. And I certainly never said it is not an interesting angle. What I said---am saying---is that people use such facts to stop themselves from listening to the points another person is making. These sorts of character slanders and operating in innuendo are totally common.

"With the difference that Moore doesn't visit parliaments and senates to show it to politicians worldwide. Moore keeps it in the cinema, not weighing it down that much."

You totally miss the point. But first, Moore doesn't at all stay confined to the cinema. He created a film and distributed it with a deliberate intention of doing harm to the Bush ticket. Stone did the same thing. It is called a hack-job and its just fine if 'your side' does it for an end you support. But if the opposition borrows the technique, it is 'evil'.

But, Fitna is far more specific in its aim. I wouldn't call it nefarious. It is sensationalist but still 'considerable'. Moore in many ways is far more underhanded, 'insidious' even. (Though he is funny). Under the surface of Islam there appears to be a rather dangerous and violent core: say one thing against it and you're a marked man.

That is something that needs to be paid attention to. Its not Wilders that is creating the scandal, it is those who react. They reveal themselves.

It's the "biggest evil" in Islamic theology, worse than murder as it represents all that stands between a believer and his faith. Persecution, insult, slander, torture, economic pressures, and temptations are all caught by it. But for Muslims it represents evil in a nutshell.

Hey! I thought you weren't going to post anymore on this subject!

No more new comments or insights on Wilders' hysterics, but I can still address your madness. You will certainly have the last word, as you don't know how to stop, how to end, how to perish. To learn that is called wisdom.

What is the normally accepted definition of fascism?

What about a less shallow approach: "resistance to transcendence", with transcendence being certain processes, ranging from liberation of traditional, hierarchical societies for increases equality to "eliminating traditional fetters imposed on the human mind by poverty, backwardness, ignorance, and class" (based on : Ernst Nolte's: The Three Faces of Fascism).

Here's what I wrote to closet-fascist vicdan on this forum: "A fascist [his] energy is mostly directed against false threats, the very things that are not the real cause of his awkward position and power is thus always projected in an irrational, myth-based über-authoritative fashion that keeps breaking down under any scrutiny. While fascism is short-lived by definition, when its corruption is fully exercised, the carnage and deterioration happening in its wake is real enough."

He is not against Arab or Islamic people, and states this very clearly.

But there are no "Islamic people" left when you take away their 'evil faith' and ban their 'holy book', a ban he actually he calls for. Wilders desires the destruction of the 'Islamic people', to coerce them into being 'non-Islamic', as if that would ever happen. And the fact that he calls for it with such a grave accusative speeches is the reason he stands trial this year.

What Van Leeuwan is doing is quite like that. It is done for political purposes. Still, from the little clips I read, she qualified all her statements saying 'there is no way to prove this', but the damage is done: it circulates all over the web. What can you do?

Hmm, why do you make an issue of that with Wilders pooping all over the Net for political purposes with no interest in accuracy? That's exactly the disingenuousness you keep on introducing.

It is called a hack-job and its just fine if 'your side' does it for an end you support. But if the opposition borrows the technique, it is 'evil'.

There's no relationship at all between Moore and Wilders their production. And you imply here I agree with Moore's movie making or positions, why? The only interesting documentary he made was Bowling for Colombine. Perhaps you should compare Wilders with Al Gore's movie. Would make more sense. In some sense all documentaries have a slant, have sponsors and messages. But I do believe they should all stay out of parliament. And be vetted by neutral experts before release.

Under the surface of Islam there appears to be a rather dangerous and violent core

It's under the surface of anything considered holy or fundamental. Pim Fortuyn, the legendary predecessor of Wilders was shot by a left-wing environmentalist, trying to protect what he felt needed protecting. Desperate actions like that are getting more common these days with people rudely woken up and exposed to the danger and violence of their own threatened attachments, often in some self-destructive fashion.

Diebert wrote: "There's no relationship at all between Moore and Wilders their production. And you imply here I agree with Moore's movie making or positions, why?"

The documentary style is what I was talking about. The similarity is that they use the medium, not really to make a 'balanced' documentary, but to express very specific opinions and to win converts to their position. Many documentaries are created and used in this way. The propaganda film is a sort of 'documentary'.

"You will certainly have the last word, as you don't know how to stop, how to end, how to perish. To learn that is called wisdom."

I guess I'm lucky: couldn't have a better teacher. ;-)

"What about a less shallow approach: "resistance to transcendence", with transcendence being certain processes, ranging from liberation of traditional, hierarchical societies for increases equality to "eliminating traditional fetters imposed on the human mind by poverty, backwardness, ignorance, and class" (based on : Ernst Nolte's: The Three Faces of Fascism)."

Sounds pretty, doesn't it? It is tarted up in a nice academic frock. I can see why you would be attracted to such a weirdly metaphysical definition: it fits with your sense of your great value as an advanced soul, a transcended one, a teacher, a guide, a leader of men. Such a man as you certainly has his work cut out for him: guiding 'beginners' to the very Fount of Transcendent Consciousness. You of course get to be the 'Transcendent Man' who has risen above 'hierarchies' and all those 'fetters imposed on the human mind' (*jeepers!*). You are sort of a Dutch gift to the emergent New Race. Damn, you have really internalized your Nietzsche and 'done your work'.

May I offer my humble obeiscences?

I'd stick with something a little more simple myself. I think the definitions I offered are those of Jacques Ellul. But you must remember that I spend a great deal of my time in so-called underdeveloped cultures. This elaborate meditation on 'transcendence' would be great for an idealistic jerkoff but useless when it comes down to the issue of handling power. I would see the Dutch situation as well invested all over the world in many different enterprises---very clean in fact, quite removed---and in the perfect position to indulge in such metaphysics. Really, even from a Freudian perspective (or especially so) the real human issues have to do with 'straight power principals'. I'd read you as a kind of political Jungian...

"Here's what I wrote to closet-fascist vicdan on this forum: "A fascist [his] energy is mostly directed against false threats, the very things that are not the real cause of his awkward position and power is thus always projected in an irrational, myth-based über-authoritative fashion that keeps breaking down under any scrutiny. While fascism is short-lived by definition, when its corruption is fully exercised, the carnage and deterioration happening in its wake is real enough."

Ah yes: the Gentile lecture of the thick-necked Jew. It's old hat but effective. I imagine it is also satisfying at a profound level. And the 'scrutinizer', who is he? Where is he? It is a new class in Europe.

Uff. Metaphysics-in-Motion. That could be like some sort of danse where you get yourself gussied up in a low thread-count mumu of sorts with colored streamers, a perfect blending of the 'male and female principals', where you start out in an embryonic position on the floor and then 'give birth to yourself' and 'arise in transcendence' with the help of invisible wires. You would sprinkle fairy dust on the thick, uber-authoratative fools (with the umlat of course), and see them cast off their dank rags and rise with you in a Danse Hollandaise de la Libéracion Humaine. You, the frank-faced Child, guiding them to the Horizon and to the Rainbow.

Oh boy, it would be pretty wonderful!

You're a heady kid with very little practical experience in life, is my opinion. Wonderful in theory, wretched in practice. What do you think? (I've never gotten the sense you have any practical experience in handling people or property).

"But there are no "Islamic people" left when you take away their 'evil faith' and ban their 'holy book', a ban he actually he calls for. Wilders desires the destruction of the 'Islamic people', to coerce them into being 'non-Islamic', as if that would ever happen. And the fact that he calls for it with such a grave accusative speeches is the reason he stands trial this year."

I guess I see it as 'consciousness raising'. It does take a certain amount of 'balls'---real balls, not theoretical Dutch balls---to put oneself on the line and take a stand in a practical sense. This does not mean I completely support him or agree. But he is defining what he believes and he is willing to accept the risk.

I tried to read the Koran and, like so many, only got so far with it: there is just not enough there. I suggest it is necessary and good to take a stand 'against' it: the value of it, the privelaging of it. With your 'open borders' that is indeed what is happening. It has to enter into a 'marketplace' and defend itself, or 'transform' itself. If it won't do it itslef, let force be applied. Isn't that sort of what he is saying? Again, I am not defending him necessarily but I do see his position, and I think I understand it. I 'empathize' with it and to a certain extent I sympathize with it.

"Hmm, why do you make an issue of that with Wilders pooping all over the Net for political purposes with no interest in accuracy? That's exactly the disingenuousness you keep on introducing."

That is because I am not siding with one, established polarity. I can see why you (and others) would call it 'pooping', but I can also see it as a 'necessary tactic'. What you recognize as 'accurate' and what I do, may be two very different things. You seem to take a pretty classically 'liberal' position. You even trip-out on some newage 'transcendence' bong hits and lie back and watch the ceiling undulate. You're touchy-feely, oddly enough. You'd ask the girl: "Are you okay with having sexual relations with me?" in conformity with the law. You probably wash your low-carbon-footprint underpants in the the sink each night and hang them out to dry in your 35 square meter flat. You're like...perfect. You're 'my kind of guy' as Nick or Ryan said. AND you are The Forth Genius. You whip out a few pithy lines that puts a Jew in his place and store up virtue in Heaven.